According to Iravaban.net, the preliminary court session was attended by Prosecutor General’s Office representatives Nelli Ter-Torosyan and Artur Karapetyan, and respondent Gevorg Kostanyan’s representative Varazdat Asatryan. Although properly notified, respondent Lilit Kostanyan’s representative Hayk Jhangiryan and respondents Armen Davtyan and Tereza Gevorgyan did not appear.

The judge cited Asatryan’s previous session’s reasoning that he hadn’t had time to study the materials and asked if Asatryan had managed to study them now.

In response, Asatryan noted that he hadn’t been provided with bank account analyses by the plaintiff and there was an issue with getting a complete picture.

“In all my cases, mostly, bank accounts have been provided, except for this case. Without them, we see an issue in effectively revealing factual data. Through numerous sessions, we’ve concluded that baseline data is important. When data is presented, it usually consists of 2 parts – banks and the main part. Now we don’t have the banks part. I would ask the party to provide these baseline data as well, because without it, it will be incomprehensible for both the court and us, and could ultimately lead to the rejection of the claim, as the plaintiff’s legal approaches or logic will be unclear regarding how these numerical values were combined in the case. In other words, besides legal analysis, we’ll have to resort to assumptions or guessing about which line was used to confirm which facts,” Asatryan added.

The lawyer assured the court that the absence of banking data makes it impossible to get a complete picture of the data.

The judge suggested clarifying unclear issues through questions and asked the prosecutor to explain the logic behind the table’s composition. According to the judge, perhaps the data is contained in the materials and could be found upon examination.

“The claim was accompanied by factual data that also contains information considered banking secrets. The provided data includes information about bank payments. The competent authority has presented the working file based on which the claim was filed with the court. The competent authority doesn’t have a specific example to follow when compiling files,” said Ter-Torosyan.

To Asatryan’s question whether this file contains data about bank transfers and their identification, Ter-Torosyan responded that payments are included, bank transfers are presented in the “payments” section, and the “comments” section includes the names of banks where deposits were made.

The prosecution’s economist Karapetyan added that transfer data is available: “You can open the file and see who transferred how much money to Mr. Kostanyan. Similarly, you can see the expenses. In the previous court session, we provided what we agreed to provide. During the evidence examination phase, we can examine the data and find answers to questions.”

Asatryan noted that during the evidence examination phase, they first need to understand which are the pieces of evidence, what fact each piece of evidence confirms, or how that evidence is manifested.

In response to Asatryan’s questions, Karapetyan explained what data they placed in which field of the table. According to Karapetyan, since Gevorg Kostanyan did not engage in business activities, his legal income was calculated from salary, loans, and overdrafts. Any other transfer that wasn’t identified was considered an illegal entry. The data in the file was presented by years, according to which any purchase exceeding annual income and consumer basket was considered illegal income. The percentage ratio was calculated based on how much Kostanyan’s expenses exceeded his income.

Ter-Torosyan assured that no data would remain unexplained and all calculations were obtained through the study of bank accounts.

According to Asatryan, the claim doesn’t explain how they concluded there was a gap in legal income, to which Karapetyan responded that calculations were made using annual calculation logic and it’s impossible to present them using daily calculation logic.

Asatryan presented a motion to the court requesting time for data examination, which the court granted.

The next court session in this case will take place on January 23, 2025, at 11:00.

According to the indictment, Stepanyan, with the prior agreement of a group of people including A. Kuregyan, H. Sahakyan, and Su. Grigoryan, illegally acquired and possessed firearms and ammunition with the purpose of unlawfully taking Sergey Grigoryan’s life. Then, together with A. Kuregyan, they organized and directed the actions of other accomplices, who directly participated in killing S. Grigoryan on June 11, 2024, around 23:15, in a manner dangerous to the lives of others.

The investigation revealed that hostile relations had formed between R. Stepanyan, known as ‘Fat Rustam’, and S. Grigoryan, known as ‘Faz’, since 2018 over a personal matter. The situation intensified in December 2020, caused by sexual insults posted as comments from the Instagram page of R. Stepanyan’s close associate about S. Grigoryan and his close female friend.

According to Iravaban.net, the defendants’ detention period expires on November 28, and the extension of this period was discussed first. The public prosecutor noted that detention is the preventive measure that can ensure proper behavior of the defendants, with no guarantee that after being released they won’t hide from the investigating body, commit new crimes, or obstruct criminal proceedings.

“I would like to remind that two other persons who had direct participation in the murder are still wanted, and in this context too, I maintain my position,” stated the prosecutor and motioned to extend the detention.

The defense objected to the prosecutor’s motion and reasoning. Rustam Stepanyan’s defender Gegham Hakobyan stated that a court of first instance’s ruling in force has confirmed the absence of two grounds mentioned by the prosecutor: flight risk and committing new crimes. He insists that his client had no connection to the crime.

“Two circumstances are attributed to him: acquiring weapons and organizing. They sent the case to court with illegal charges and say ‘prove your innocence.’ They say ‘you, Rustam Stepanyan, because you had previous issues with the victim, and people allegedly connected to the murder had connections with you, therefore you organized everything.’ There is no other evidence, just these two circumstances: he had issues with the murdered person, and these persons had connections with him,” noted Hakobyan.

Rustam Stepanyan also made a statement in court. He noted that he has reviewed the case materials and, though not a lawyer, will explain how he understands everything: “From my house, we went somewhere with Suren Grigoryan, it’s written ‘somewhere.’ I say, respected investigator, we didn’t just go ‘somewhere,’ I’m saying specifically where we went. I went without Suren Grigoryan. We went with 3-4 people, then I received a call from Grigoryan, he asked me to come, said let’s meet, have coffee, whatever. We go to that nearby place, we were about 3-4 people that day. We sit down, food, water… stay to spend some time, then go to a birthday party. We sit for about 2 hours, get up, go to the birthday party,” the defendant was explaining when the presiding judge interrupted him. Masis Melkonyan stated that there is a procedural phase for such detailed stories, and now Stepanyan should simply state whether he agrees with his defender’s position and if he has anything additional to add.

“I just want to understand where this ‘somewhere’ is. The occasion was at ‘Parvana’ restaurant. There was someone who left home around 12, called a taxi, and left. Some time passes, rumors spread throughout the city that Rustam came home, and the shooter also went home. There are cameras showing how that person calls a taxi, gets in, and leaves. I say, man, who called a taxi, what kind of talk is this? I think these are just talks, anyone can talk, and it’s the result of these talks that I’m here today. We check who left from our place at night, who called a taxi. They say it was this person, just standing 30-40 meters away. The camera records how that person left the yard, got in a taxi, and left. The security camera recorded it. I have a lot to say, but briefly for now. We have no connection to this case, we’ve proven it and it’s proven. There can’t be any evidence, if there is, then I’m lying,” Stepanyan explains.

Suren Grigoryan hasn’t been found; according to the preliminary investigation body, the person went via the “North-South” road: “They went to Proshyan. I swear, I know 5 people from Proshyan, those people know 50 people.”

The defendant insists that he hasn’t seen Suren Grigoryan after 12:30 at night, and the investigators didn’t do their job well. They didn’t ask Rustam Stepanyan what connection he has to this case: “I would have said look at these numbers, look at these transcripts, Suren is also my godfather-godson. Those godfather-godsons are century-old enemies with that deceased person.”

The presiding judge interrupted him again, saying it’s very good that they’re presenting this, but it should be done at the appropriate phase.

Rustam Stepanyan also made a statement in court. He mentioned that he has reviewed the case materials and, although not a lawyer, will explain how he understands everything: “From my house, we went somewhere with Suren Grigoryan, it’s written ‘somewhere.’ I say, respected investigator, we didn’t go ‘somewhere,’ I say specifically where we went. I went without Suren Grigoryan. We went 3-4 people, then I received a call from Grigoryan, he asked me to come, said let’s meet, have coffee, etc. We go to that nearby facility, we were about 3-4 people that day. We sit down, food, water… stay to spend some time, then go to a birthday party. We sit for about 2 hours, get up, go to the birthday party,” the defendant was explaining when the presiding judge interrupted him.

Masis Melkonyan stated that there is a procedural phase for such detailed stories, and now Stepanyan should simply state whether he agrees with his defender’s position and if he has anything additional to add.

“I just want to understand where this ‘somewhere’ is. The occasion was at ‘Parvana’ restaurant. There was someone who left home around 12, called a taxi, and left. Some time passes, rumors spread throughout the city that Rustam came home, and the shooter also went home. There are cameras showing how that person calls a taxi, gets in, and leaves. I say, man, who called a taxi, what kind of talk is this? I think these are just talks, anyone can talk, and it’s the result of these talks that I’m here today. We check who left from our place at night, who called a taxi. They say it was this person, just standing 30-40 meters away. The camera records how that person left the yard, got in a taxi, and left. The security camera recorded it. I have a lot to say, but briefly for now. We have no connection to this case, we’ve proven it and it’s proven. There can’t be any evidence, if there is, then I’m lying,” Stepanyan explains.

Suren Grigoryan hasn’t been found; according to the preliminary investigation body, the person went via the “North-South” road: “They went to Proshyan. I swear, I know 5 people from Proshyan, those people know 50 people.”

The defendant insists that he hasn’t seen Suren Grigoryan after 12:30 at night, and the investigators didn’t do their job well. They didn’t ask Rustam Stepanyan what connection he has to this case: “I would have said look at these numbers, look at these transcripts, Suren is also my godfather-godson. Those godfather-godsons are century-old enemies with that deceased person.”

The presiding judge interrupted him again, saying it’s very good that they’re presenting this, but it should be done at the appropriate phase.

Rustam Stepanyan asked the court to change the preventive measure and apply signature bond not to leave: “I have 3 underage children, my parents are in poor health, please let me go home. Two months have passed since that incident, they kidnapped me, didn’t arrest me. They kidnapped me, that’s all.”

The second defendant, Ashot Kyureghyan, also stated that he has no connection to all this and assured that if released from detention, he won’t commit any “violations.”

Masis Melkonyan decided to extend the defendants’ detention on three counts, also taking into account the data in the case.

The judge also announced that the court has received comments from the victims’ representatives, stating that they won’t file property claims against any of the defendants. Then the court addressed the issue of determining the volume of evidence to be examined.

The hearing was postponed.

While holding the position of minister, Vano Siradeghyan, according to the charges, in summer 1992 through Armen Sahak Ter-Sahakyan organized a stable armed criminal group (gang), which included members from the system entrusted to him and armed them with various types of firearms and ammunition, and later patronized the gang and concealed their numerous robberies and other crimes.

The criminal case against Vano Siradeghyan and 11 other defendants was sent to the Malatia-Sebastia Community Court with an indictment in July 1999. Among the defendants were the Head of the Internal Troops Department of the RA Ministry of Internal Affairs Vahan Harutyunyan and other representatives of internal troops. (The criminal case regarding Armen Ter-Sahakyan and others was sent to court earlier and was heard in a different court).

In 2000, Vano Siradeghyan fled, and his part was separated from the case of Vahan Harutyunyan and others. The charges against the latter were proven in court and they were convicted. The examination of the case regarding Vano Siradeghyan was suspended in court due to his whereabouts being unknown.

On October 16, 2021, Vano Siradeghyan died. And, now, in 2022, the examination of the criminal case initiated against him was resumed. Lawyer Tigran Yegoryan had announced that Khachatur Siradeghyan would demand to continue the case examination with the expectation of acquittal.

According to Iravaban.net, Vano Siradeghyan’ s son Khachatur Siradeghyan and public prosecutor Movses Antonyan attended the court session. Case defender Tigran Yegoryan was not present at the court session.

The parties to the trial did not object to continuing the court session without the defender’s presence. During the presentation of written evidence, the public prosecutor read the protocols from June 1994.

First were presented the protocols of special cases investigator Tovmasyan regarding the testimonies of A. Israelyan, I. Hovhannisyan, and Yerevan Polyclinic No. 3 reception doctor L. Tolkmadjyan, based on which the examination of the polyclinic’s reception register was conducted. The register indicates that on June 2, 1994, Artur Hakobyan was brought to the hospital reception and was referred to the gastrology department. No other data about Hakobyan was found in the register.

Another protocol was read regarding the examination and seizure of clothes, according to which the clothes of A. Hakobyan, who was transferred to the polyclinic with a gunshot wound – his undershirt, underwear and shoes, 220 drams which was in Hakobyan’s underwear pocket, were seized for examination purposes. The examination revealed that there were damages and dried blood traces on the undershirt.

The left upper part of the underwear’s waistband is soaked with red liquid similar to blood, and there is also fabric damage. On the underwear, there are also tiny particles resembling ground glass that shine under light. Blood traces were found both inside the shoes and on the upper parts of the banknotes.

The next protocol relates to preventing the disclosure of the real circumstances of Vladimir Grigoryan’s murder preparation and attempted premeditated murder under aggravating circumstances, and obstructing the discovery of truth in criminal cases initiated on these facts, and was drawn up in one of the houses on Marshal Baghramyan Avenue in Yerevan on June 4, 1994.

For composing the protocol, an examination of the shirt, suit, and pen was conducted. Vladimir Grigoryan declared that while driving his car, during the criminals’ shooting, he was wearing the suit and had the pen in his pocket, which was damaged as a result of the shooting.

On the jacket, there are blood-like red traces in the form of 17 drops and 17 fabric damages, which externally resemble fragment damages and 2 gray small fragments. The pen was difficult to open and close due to the damage. According to Grigoryan, the damage to the pen occurred during the shooting. He also stated that he had washed the shirt, resulting in the blood traces being cleaned, but there are fabric damages that correspond to the fabric damages on the jacket. There were also blood traces on the underwear.

The basis for the next protocol was a series of organizational measures aimed at carrying out the assignment of murder by Armen Ter-Sahakyan and his led gang on Vano Siradeghyan’s instructions in early March 1993, including the theft of vehicles through robberies to use them as means of murder.

A protocol was also presented about identifying a person by photo on June 3 or 8, 1994. Makar Martirosyan, examining the presented 4 photographs, stated that he saw the young man pictured in photo number 3 together with Albert and Vazgen on May 25, 1994, in the yard of Yerevan Registration and Examination Department. At Vazgen’s suggestion, Makar examined Albert’s car. He noted that he doesn’t know the young man’s name but immediately recognized him when seeing him. He said he doesn’t recognize the others. Albert Kotanjyan noted that the young man pictured in the first photo from the left is the one he saw at the velodrome on May 27, 1994.

“First his 2 friends approached me, then he approached me limping and sat in my car with his tall friend for testing purposes. Their 2nd friend, who had approached with the tall friend, didn’t get in the car. The one pictured is the limping guy.”

According to the reference, Albert Kotanjyan recognized Suren Harutyunyan.

By another protocol, 4 photographs were presented for recognition, as a result of which Albert Kotanjyan stated that he saw the person pictured in the second photo from the left on May 24 and 25 in Kanaker.

“He was coming to formalize the sale of the car I sold. If I’m not mistaken, on May 23 he approached me with his tall friend, but when we sat in my car with the tall one, he approached Arsen, an auto shop employee, and talked with him.” According to the reference, Kotanjyan recognized Arshak Arshikhichukyan.

In the next presented protocol, it was noted that Arshak Kotanjyan recognized from the photographs of 3 persons presented to him the tall young man in the second photo from the left who approached him at the velodrome on May 23, sat next to him, and after testing the car paid 1600 dollars.

According to the reference, Kotanjyan recognized Israel Sargsyan.

In the last protocol, witness Gevorg Mejlumyan was presented with 3 photographs for recognition. Mejlumyan recognized the young man pictured in the 2nd photo, who at “Veterok” with his tall friend, whose leg was injured, approached him and Albert Kotanjyan about buying a car and after testing the car stated that he wanted to buy it.

Gevorg Mejlumyan recognized from the next 3 photos presented to him the young man pictured in the 2nd photo who wanted to buy A. Kotanjyan’s car and whom he saw on May 23 with his tall friend whose leg was injured, and he stated that his leg was in a cast, injured as a result of a car accident.

According to the reference, witness Gevorg Mejlumyan recognized Israel Sargsyan during the 1st protocol and Suren Harutyunyan during the 2nd protocol.

The phase of examining written evidence was not completed. It will continue during the next court session in this case on January 21, 2025, at 10:00.

Lilit Khachatryan

Armen Minasyan was born on July 6, 2001, in Vardenik.

With a beloved girl, business plans, and keeping big dreams and goals in his heart, on January 7, 2020, he was drafted into the army to serve his homeland. Armen had his hero, whose image he carried when he left to serve. He said: How can I not serve when we have given boys like Robert Abajyan? Armen served in Jrakan.

“He served well, never complained about anything. After serving 6 months, he couldn’t come home because of the pandemic. We couldn’t visit either. He was a driver. His friends say he wasn’t afraid of anything. One of them said – we hadn’t even seen such a film. During the war days, my son was able to neutralize weapons, took the hit upon himself so nothing would happen to his friends. He drove the vehicle with such skill that they escaped encirclement several times. Whenever I called, he would say, ‘Mom dear, everything will be fine,'” – tells his mother.

A fellow serviceman, who was in a coma for 6 months, after regaining consciousness, told Armen’s parents that they were surrounded, with enemies on all sides. They got in the vehicle and before they could move, the vehicle was blown up, only two people survived. Armen fell on October 30.

She now lives in Meghradzor village of Tsaghkadzor community. She remembers that a two-story house collapsed, resulting in the death of a grandmother and grandchild who were inside. Shrapnel from the bombardment also hit her house. She released her domestic birds and quickly left.

“I only took my passport. I pay house rent, but there’s no bathroom, the roof leaks. If I knew that by registering in Armenia they would give me a house right away, I would do it. I’m fighting for a house. I pay rent, I pay utilities, and now we have a firewood problem,” – she noted.

————————

The “Strengthening Protection Mechanisms for the Rights of Forcibly Displaced Persons from Nagorno-Karabakh” project is implemented by the Armenian Lawyers Association in cooperation with the “Harmonia” Shushi Women’s NGO, within the framework of the “Monitoring Justice Sector Reforms in Armenia” (www.juremonia.am) project funded by the European Union. The overall objective of the project is to promote the integration of forcibly displaced persons from Artsakh in their new communities of residence in Armenia through strengthening mechanisms for protecting their rights, raising their level of legal awareness of rights and access to justice and protection. This publication was prepared with the financial support of the European Union. The Armenian Lawyers Association NGO is responsible for the content and it does not necessarily reflect the views of the European Union.

Three years ago in September, Armenia initiated proceedings against Azerbaijan regarding the latter’s violations of the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination. Last year in April, Azerbaijan presented its preliminary objections.

What will this mean for Armenia and what results can be expected? Experts present their analysis in our report.

The event provided an opportunity to review progress on ongoing reforms and reaffirm joint continued commitment to CEPA implementation. Ambassador Maragos emphasized that CEPA serves as the cornerstone of EU-Armenia relations and drives reforms and modernization in the country, aligned with Armenia’s long-term strategic vision. Deputy Prime Minister Grigoryan highlighted CEPA’s significance, emphasizing its role in strengthening Armenia’s partnership with the European Union and the development of its people.

During the meeting, heads and representatives of various state bodies presented their work on CEPA implementation in their respective sectors.

Syuzanna Soghomonyan, a CEPA Civil Society Platform member and representative of the Armenian Lawyers’ Association, also addressed the event. She reaffirmed the platform members’ position that the Republic of Armenia’s development path leads to the European Union. The speech addressed visa liberalization and the dignified visa procedures for Armenian citizens from EU member states. She also emphasized the role of the EU peacekeeping mission on the Armenia-Azerbaijan border. Syuzanna Soghomonyan reaffirmed the platform’s commitment to support the Armenian government in implementing internal reforms arising from the agreement, emphasizing the institutional nature and regularity of government-platform format consultations and meetings.

Iravaban.net discussed the topic with Arthur Vardanyan, Head of the Legal Department of the Investigative Committee. He noted that the newly adopted Criminal Procedure Code stipulates that criminal prosecution can be carried out in 2 ways: public criminal prosecution and private criminal prosecution.

In essence, the difference between conducting private criminal prosecution and public criminal prosecution is that in the case of private criminal prosecution, a criminal claim from the person who has been victimized by the crime is necessary. The latter must pursue the restoration of their violated rights, unlike in public criminal prosecution.

Details in the video.

“It seems that what is a person’s intellectual property, that is, what’s in someone’s mind, in their head, is untouchable, but today we have a situation where these seemingly untouchable values are being misappropriated,” notes Shushanik Movsisyan, expert at the Product Examination Department, adding that the most important part of an expert’s daily work is trying to bring criminal proceedings to positive resolution through special knowledge and various investigations.

According to Anna Harutyunyan, expert at the Product Examination Department, over time, procedural issues require answering questions related to intellectual property results.

Intellectual property results include inventions, copyright and related rights objects, industrial and commercial marks, industrial designs, and trade secrets.

The expert reported a case where an author discovered their song lyrics were exactly copied and presented under another person’s name, with that person performing the song at numerous concerts, violating the author’s rights.

“This raises the issue of proof, that the author must be able to prove they are the real rights holder of the copyright-protected object,” notes Harutyunyan.

According to the expert, under available evidence, appropriate arithmetic calculations were made and the extent of damage was assessed, which was later subject to recovery.

Shushanik Movsisyan notes that even computer programs, games, and food are being counterfeited. The latter case is particularly notable, when counterfeit food was brought to market, after which the perpetrators were identified. Laboratory tests within the examination showed that although the product was counterfeit, its quality characteristics were better than the factory product.

There are even cases when consumers during impulse purchases don’t pay attention to what’s written on the product, mainly looking at color and design solutions, which can cause confusion.

“Intellectual property examination is significant and important not only for business protection but also for consumer rights protection. There have been many cases when I too have fallen victim to trademark confusion similarity while making personal purchases,” says the expert.

Shushanik Movsisyan gives another example, noting a case where famous brand jewelry was counterfeited. Being the author of jewelry design solutions and having a patent, the person noticed that a copy of their brand had been marketed.

“The rights holder accidentally saw in one of the shops that their product was being sold with a non-repeating mark, they bought it as a customer to have evidence, and appealed to the appropriate authorities. During the examination, of course, we needed to apply several methodologies to achieve the desired result,” she said.

Details in the video.

Iravaban.net submitted an inquiry to Yerevan Municipality to find out how much money was allocated from the municipality for the celebration, how much of that money was given to the invited singers, hosts, as well as bloggers-influencers.

In response to our inquiry, they informed us that 49 contracts were signed for the “Erebuni-Yerevan 2806” celebrations, with a total amount of 602 million 277 thousand 103 AMD.

Iravaban.net presents the signed contracts and the cost of provided services.

For singers, musicians, and hosts:

Singer Vardan Sargsyan was paid 1 million 378 thousand 100 drams for performance,

Composer Yervand Yerznkyan was given 2 million 500 thousand drams for participation in events,

“Reincarnation” music band was paid 2 million 400 thousand drams,

“TM PRODUCTION” LLC was paid 1 million 305 thousand 600 drams for ensuring Tigran Zhamkochyan’s performance at the Republic Square event,

Singer Nune Yesayan 1 million 268 thousand 800 drams,

Nerses Avetisyan 1 million 50 thousand drams,

Singer Arsen Safaryan 526 thousand 300 drams,

“Number 5” band’s lead singer Tigran Mnatsakyan 137 thousand 300 drams for performance,

“Number 5” band’s lead singer Manvel Khachatryan 137 thousand 300 drams for performance,

“Number 5” band’s lead singer Albert Grigoryan 137 thousand 300 drams for performance,

Host Anna Avanesyan was given 1 million drams for hosting the classical concert at Freedom Square,

Gevorg Hakobyan 1 million 378 thousand 100 drams for performance at Freedom Square,

“LIGHT UP COMPANY” LLC for singer Eric Karapetyan’s performance 1 million 579 thousand drams,

Singer Iveta Mukuchyan 3 million 335 thousand drams for performance,

Artak Nersisyan 270 thousand drams for performance at Freedom Square event,

“Artak Gevorgyan” IE for ensuring Arto Tuncboyaciyan and “Armenian Navy” band’s performance at “Cascade” complex 2 million 315 thousand 800 drams,

Host Arman Margaryan was paid 1 million 50 thousand drams,

Katarina Fardazyan was paid 270 thousand drams for performance during the classical concert at Freedom Square,

Soloist Tigran Hakobyan was paid 538 thousand drams for performance during the classical concert at Freedom Square,

Bella Amaryan was paid 407 thousand 300 drams for performance during the same classical concert,

“Paponya” LLC was paid 4 million 145 thousand 900 drams for ensuring “Garik and Sona” band’s performance,

“Tigran Voskanyan” IE for ensuring “Lav Eli” band’s performance at Diana Abgar park 1 million 593 thousand 600 drams,

“Grigori Agakhanyan” IE for ensuring Grisha Aghakhanyan’s performance 888 thousand 900 drams,

“Poghosyan Armen Ediki” IE for 3.33 band’s performance 2 million 105 thousand 300 drams,

Raisa Sargsyan 635 thousand 600 drams,

“Nemra” band 2 million 105 thousand 300 drams,

Andranik Manukyan 526 thousand 300 drams,

Tigran Kakhvejyan 270 thousand drams for concert performance,

“Creative Decor” for ensuring Aram MP3’s performance at 2 concerts 3 million 300 thousand drams.

1. Composer Levon Malkhasyan was given 636 thousand drams for participation in cultural events within “Erebuni-Yerevan-2806” celebrations,
2. “David Niazyan” IE was paid 473 thousand 700 drams for ensuring “Sevagir” project’s performance at Diana Abgar park,
3. “Narine Poghosyan Telmani” IE was paid 650 thousand drams for ensuring “Jazz for Children” project’s performance,
4. Vachagan Gharibyan was paid 407 thousand 300 drams for ensuring “Chalk” project’s performance during the event,
5. “TONLAB STUDIO” LLC was paid 666 thousand 700 drams for ensuring “Rezen Tal” rock band’s performance at the same park,
6. “Arik Grigoryan” IE was paid 800 thousand drams for ensuring “Tmbata” band’s performance at the same park,
7. “Narek Barseghyan” IE was paid 1 million 111 thousand 200 drams for ensuring JAG and Narek Barseghyan performance at the same park,
8. “Gasparyan Sergey” IE was paid 333 thousand 400 drams for ensuring “Fairwind” band’s performance at the same park,
9. “Sona Shiroyan” IE was paid 850 thousand drams for organizing Artsakh State Jazz Orchestra’s performance at “Cascade” complex,
10. “Vahagn Hayrapetyan” IE was paid 1 million 575 thousand drams for ensuring “Cats” jazz band’s performance at “Cascade” complex,
11. “Armenia Pop-Jazz Orchestra” SNCO was paid 4 million drams,
12. “Armenian State Symphony Orchestra” was paid 8 million 700 thousand drams,
13. “Numa” LLC was paid 5 million 265 thousand drams for gathering, organizing and coordinating services of 50 participating wine and food producing companies during the wine festival held in Northern Avenue area,

For organizing and coordinating services of gathering 24 participating companies during the beer festival held at Diana Abgar park, 5 million 265 thousand drams was paid,

14. Host Arman Margaryan was paid 1 million 50 thousand drams,
15. “Stage Design” LLC was given a total of 45 million drams for technical equipment rental and maintenance services:

Stage, sound, light, metal constructions – 25 million drams,

Metal constructions, lighting and sound equipment – 20 million drams.

16. “Stage Style” LLC was paid 40 million 106 thousand 426 drams for segment preparation, installation and dismantling, stage masking services during the concert at Republic Square, Cafesjian Sculpture Garden, jazz concert at “Cascade” complex, Freedom Square, and concerts at Diana Abgar park,
17. “Event Platform” LLC was paid 20 million drams for technical equipment rental and maintenance services for organizing a rock concert at Diana Abgar park.
18. “Factory Production” LLC was paid 304 million 487 thousand 577 drams for concert programs organized at Cafesjian Sculpture Garden, Freedom Square, Diana Abgar park, Charles Aznavour Square, Republic Square with participation of famous Armenian bands and individual artists, as well as sports-oriented programs organized at Sakharov Square. 

Mariam Shahnazaryan